Return-Path:
Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:32:14 -0600 (MDT)
From: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net (fordtrucks80up-digest)
To: fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net
Subject: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #119
Reply-To: fordtrucks80up ListService.net
Sender: owner-fordtrucks80up-digest ListService.net


fordtrucks80up-digest Thursday, September 18 1997 Volume 01 : Number 119



=======================================================================
Ford Truck Enthusiasts - 1980 And Newer Trucks Digest
Visit our web site: http://www.ford-trucks.com/
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
To unsubscribe, send email to:
fordtrucks80up-digest-request listservice.net
with the word "unsubscribe" in the body of the message. For help, send
email to the same address with the word "help" in the body of the
message.
=======================================================================
In this issue:

Re: PCV filter/air breather ["Lou Guerriero" ]
Re: Popping sounds [Filip M Gieszczykiewicz ]
Injector Cleaners ["Charles A. Biggs" ]
Voting results [Ken Payne ]
Ranger apoppin! [yhtlines surfari.net]
[none] [Ken Payne ]
A Hearty Thank You... [Brian Pynn ]
Popping sounds ["Charles A. Biggs" ]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #118 ["Mike Jones"]
High Octane Gas (was: Re: A Hearty Thank You...) [James Federline
Re: Voting results [BILLPEGZ aol.com]
Popping Sound ["Mark A. Ross" ]
Re: Voting results [James Federline ]
Re: Voting results [Ken Payne ]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #118 [Thom Cheney ]
Re: Voting results [Thom Cheney ]
Re: Voting results [Thom Cheney ]
Re: Octane ratings [KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)]
Re: Voting results [BILLPEGZ aol.com]
Re: Voting results [KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)]
Re: Octane ratings [Thom Cheney ]
Speaking of ratios... [Brian Pynn ]
Re: F350 Front Diff Limited Slip [Bill Funk ]
Re: trailer wiring problem [Bill Funk ]
Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #118 [Bill Funk ]

=======================================================================

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 07:05:16 -0400
From: "Lou Guerriero"
Subject: Re: PCV filter/air breather

Hi,

I have an 88 Bronco II... I still can't find the damned PCV filter.
It's not in the air box... that's just empty.. with a sensor and
input/output.... I don't seem to see anything behind the valve cover by
the pcv valve... both suggested spots..

Anyone know for sure? I am feeling distinctly "un - automotive"
now....

I know that I've never changed this part... does it even exist?!?!

Thanks in advance,

Lou
][=====================================][
][ No Matter Where you go, there you are! ][
][=====================================][

WWW: http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.easyinternet.net/louisg/
E-mail: loug easyinternet.net
ICQ UIN: 1235438

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 07:02:04 -0500 (CDT)
From: Filip M Gieszczykiewicz
Subject: Re: Popping sounds

You (Eric D. Sipes) wrote:
> I have a 1994 F150 4x4 which for about the last 6 months has been making
> loud popping sounds (usually several in succession: pop, pop, pop) in
> the frontend when I make turns, turn the steering wheel when parked, or
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> occasionally when I hit a bump. For some reason it doesn't do it every

Greetings. If you hear _several_ pops in a row during this, it's NOT the
drivetrain (u-joints, etc). I suspect a frozen (or freezING) joint or some
other steering part that should be greased but is not. Get under the front
and check for cracked or missing rubber boots on all joints!

Don't forget to check the upper and lower ball-joints on the wheels. I
had a Toyota Camry that would make horrible groaning noises that all the
mechanics said came from the (old) sturts (which work perfectly) I traced
it down to a horribly loose lower ball-joint ($35 part + $30 labor) in
the left wheel.

> time I drive it, some days it doesn't do it at all, other days it will
> do it constantly. It is really frustrating me, but my warranty expired
> in July and being on a really tight budget, I can't afford to take it to
> a mechanic if it isn't a serious problem. Does anyone have any idea

May not be a "serious problem" NOW... but, tell me, if you loose steering
ability while going 65MHh... is THAT a "serious problem" to you or just
an "ooops"? You want to wait until hanging by your ass up a tree?

[sarcasm off]

Take care.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 07:03:38 -0500
From: "Charles A. Biggs"
Subject: Injector Cleaners

Are there certain brands of injector cleaners (for adding to the fuel)
that are better than the others or all they all about the same in
effectiveness?


Chuck Biggs
mailto:biggs flash.net

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:04:29 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Voting results

Just counted the voting results for the split: 34 in favor,
11 against. As I said earlier, not many votes. Does anyone
care to see the comments made or is it a moot point?

- -Ken

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 05:05:43
From: yhtlines surfari.net
Subject: Ranger apoppin!

Jerad!

Your 'popping' 84 Ranger windshield hasn't broken yet? Mine finally spit
down the middle and that stopped the windhsield "popping" on my 83 Ranger!
It was almost a relief when it did.

Dave Lampert

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:42:04 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: [none]

Web Ratings just reviewed the Ford Truck Enthusiasts web site
and gave us a 4 on a scale of 1-5!

http://www.ford-trucks.com//lc/lc.php?action=do&link=http://www.webratings.net

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 06:45:48 -0700
From: Brian Pynn
Subject: A Hearty Thank You...

To all of you who resonded with incredible speed and clarity to my
question on axle ratios. A few more months in this mailgroup and I feel
like I'll be able to hold my own at a dinner party of licensed auto
mechanics. Better than just smiling and nodding.

Next discussion: high octane gas. I always use 92 -94 octane just
because it seems like, hey, if its more expensive it has to be better,
right? Well, I've heard comments to the contrary such as "it runs your
engine too hot; you don't really need the high octane to prolong engine
life and may in fact reduce engine life". Any truth to this?

Thanks again,

Brian Pynn
97 4x2 Ranger XL S/Cab 3.0L 5sp

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 08:58:50 -0500
From: "Charles A. Biggs"
Subject: Popping sounds

Eric, I had those sounds in my 90 truck and it turned out to be the
rubber gromets in the front suspension. I shot them with some brake
fluid and the popping went away.

Ciao,

- --
Chuck Biggs
Aerospace Consultant
mailto:biggs flash.net

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:00:27 -0400
From: "Mike Jones"
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #118

...one of the main bi-products of the internal combustion engine
>is carbon monoxide (not carbon dioxide, which other than asphixiation, is
>relatively harmless). CO, on the other hand is poisonous to humans and
bad
>for the environment. This is one of the reasons that the calalyst (some
>form of paladium if I remember right), that is used in the catalytic
>converters that have been mandated on vehicles, chemically reacts the CO
to
>into much less harmful H2O and CO2.

Not to flame, but I'm afraid that CO2 is indeed the main byproduct of
*complete* combustion, no matter what the source, be it an engine or a
campfire. The goal of emissions design -- including basic engine design --
is to get to total CO2 production (no CO). CO is formed a a result of
*incomplete* combustion. You will never have totally complete combustion
in an internal combustion engine. The relatively cool cylinder walls and
other internal engine parts (valves, etc.) condense fuel vapor, fuel will
hide out in the ring lands, etc.). Engine controls are not perfect,
either. The catalyst takes care of these problems (and NOx production,
too, but that's a different thread).

The remaining problem with vehicle emissions (i.e. we're nearly at the *as
good as it will ever get* stage) is cold start, before the catalyst is up
to temp. Manufacturers are trying various ideas, such as heated catalysts,
catalysts built into the exhaust manifolds, etc. In fact, ever wonder why
when many engines start they immediately head for 1500 - 2000 rpms for a
couple of seconds? They do this so as to send a blast of CO to the
catalyst to get it lit off faster.

CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and if the global warming doomsayers are right,
may be harmful in its own way.

Enough for now...

Mike J.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:05:17 -0500 (CDT)
From: James Federline
Subject: High Octane Gas (was: Re: A Hearty Thank You...)

On Thu, 18 Sep 1997, Brian Pynn wrote:
>
> Next discussion: high octane gas. I always use 92 -94 octane just
> because it seems like, hey, if its more expensive it has to be better,
> right? Well, I've heard comments to the contrary such as "it runs your
> engine too hot; you don't really need the high octane to prolong engine
> life and may in fact reduce engine life". Any truth to this?

Depends on how you feel about things... :)

1) less emissions: If you feel good when you pollute less, high octane is
a good thing. Lower octane gas has more junk in it that
doesn't do a whole lot for your engine and comes out
as hydrocarbon pollutants.

2) less buildup on your injectors: Dunno 'bout this one, my '96 Renger
if the first FI vehicle I've ever owned, but it makes sense - less
gunk and junk, more octane, less gum.

3) "Runs your engine too hot": well, if you know that for a fact, try
cooler plugs. After all, if high octane puts your cooling system
over the edge, somethign else is wrong.

4) higher gas milage: Rings true for most, unless you like flooring it
everywhere, in which case, you'll be putting extra wear on the
entire vehicle (a more costly scenario than paying a buck or two
extra at the pump 2 or 3 times a month, so it's another issue
entirely)

5) better throttle response and a bit more power: leads many to hit
the accelerator harder cause it's fun, negating benefit #4 :)

6) Engine mods: Many types of performance engine mods require high octane
gas to function well.

7) Tuning of todays engines from the factory is made to work well on the
lower and lowest grades of gas available. Sometimes, depending
on the vehicle and it's condition, high octane gas does nothing.
Thus, people do #6. :)

- --
James B. Federline MinnSoft Corporation
Principal Consultant "Actual Solutions To Real Problems"
----------M_____i_____n_____n_____S_____o_____f_____t---(sm)---
Tivoli / Lawson / UNIX Administration / Database Administration

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:11:01 -0400 (EDT)
From: BILLPEGZ aol.com
Subject: Re: Voting results

Don't know the question. Am new to the forum. If the vote is to split
Rangers from the real trucks I vote DO IT!

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 10:16:25 -0400
From: "Mark A. Ross"
Subject: Popping Sound

Eric D. Sipes wrote:

> I have a 1994 F150 4x4 which for about the last 6 months has been =
making
> loud popping sounds (usually several in succession: pop, pop, pop) in
> the frontend when I make turns, turn the steering wheel when parked, =
or
> occasionally when I hit a bump. For some reason it doesn't do it =
every
> time I drive it, some days it doesn't do it at all, other days it will
> do it constantly. It is really frustrating me, but my warranty =
expired
> in July and being on a really tight budget, I can't afford to take it =
to
> a mechanic if it isn't a serious problem. Does anyone have any idea
> what could be causing this?
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Eric
My 94 Ranger did the same thing. Look at the swaybar bracket see if it =
shows signs of hitting the tie rod end. If so the bracket may be bent or =
broken.

WARNING! All unsolicited commercial e-mail will be charged a $500 U.S.
proofreading fee.Failure to pay within 5 days of receipt of such billing
will result in legal actions.The sending of such e-mail constitutes
acceptance of these terms.=20

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:27:42 -0500 (CDT)
From: James Federline
Subject: Re: Voting results

On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 BILLPEGZ aol.com wrote:
> Don't know the question. Am new to the forum. If the vote is to split
> Rangers from the real trucks I vote DO IT!

As I've lived my life, a real truck was what
I drove during a short period in my life, and it was 11 ft. tall, had
18 speeds and a sleeper. See? It's all relative and personal.

Ranger owners and supporters: do us all a favor and don't get into a
spitting match over this comment. If this is a real issue, then you'll
find me subscribed to both lists. I'm an equal opportunity truck fan.

- --
James B. Federline MinnSoft Corporation
Principal Consultant "Actual Solutions To Real Problems"
----------M_____i_____n_____n_____S_____o_____f_____t---(sm)---
Tivoli / Lawson / UNIX Administration / Database Administration

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:15:55 -0400
From: Ken Payne
Subject: Re: Voting results

At 09:27 AM 9/18/97 -0500, you wrote:
>On Thu, 18 Sep 1997 BILLPEGZ aol.com wrote:
>> Don't know the question. Am new to the forum. If the vote is to split
>> Rangers from the real trucks I vote DO IT!
>
>As I've lived my life, a real truck was what
>I drove during a short period in my life, and it was 11 ft. tall, had
>18 speeds and a sleeper. See? It's all relative and personal.
>
>Ranger owners and supporters: do us all a favor and don't get into a
>spitting match over this comment. If this is a real issue, then you'll
>find me subscribed to both lists. I'm an equal opportunity truck fan.

The issue was whether to split the 1979 & older truck list into
two lists: 1960 and older/1961-79

Badge wars are bad enough. All of the trucks here are "real."
I've seen some of the Rangers put to some hard work and I'm sure
their owners are just as proud of them as I am of my truck.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 07:54:58 -0500
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #118

Mike Jones wrote:

> The remaining problem with vehicle emissions (i.e. we're nearly at the *as
> good as it will ever get* stage) is cold start, before the catalyst is up
> to temp. Manufacturers are trying various ideas, such as heated catalysts,
> catalysts built into the exhaust manifolds, etc.

The *as good as it will get* is pretty darned good. Honda just
released a new engine that conforms to California's newest emission
requirements, without sacrificing mileage or hp. It is very nearly to
the point that a gasoline powered vehicle is cleaner than the electric
vehicles that the beauracrats have been pushing on us (when you take
in account the coal or ? burned to create the electricity). The cold
start issue is the last possible place that needs the work.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 08:01:19 -0500
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: Voting results

BILLPEGZ aol.com wrote:
>
> Don't know the question. Am new to the forum. If the vote is to split
> Rangers from the real trucks I vote DO IT!


As a Ranger owner I will let the "real truck" comment pass because I
know that your ego is somehow tied to the wheelbase or c.i.
displacement of your truck.

I would also support a split from the big trucks.... I am not
particularly interested in the endless threads of F350 owners
comparing tongue weights of their travel trailers (yawn).

TC

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 08:17:05 -0500
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: Voting results

BILLPEGZ aol.com wrote:
>
> Don't know the question. Am new to the forum. If the vote is to split
> Rangers from the real trucks I vote DO IT!

Maybe I was a little quick to slam on old Bill. Sorry Bill, I'll be
civil about your truck if you'll be civil about mine.

TC

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:35:40, -0500
From: KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)
Subject: Re: Octane ratings

Brian,

Almost all types of cars run just perfectly on 87 octane gas. Some
of the high performance factory cars must run on 92, but your truck
should be fine on 87. I am not exactly sure if the higher octane gas
will reduce engine life. If you add a superchip module or powerchip
to add horsepower, those usually require 92 octane gas. Maybe other
people can explain more about it.

Josh

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:45:58 -0400 (EDT)
From: BILLPEGZ aol.com
Subject: Re: Voting results

I drove utility line trucks too. The comment was in jest. Lighten up all ya
all.

The split would just lighten the spam.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 11:52:26, -0500
From: KNBD87D prodigy.com (MR JOSH J TENNEY)
Subject: Re: Voting results

James,

Thank you for the kind reply. I am just like you, an equal
opportunity truck fan. All that comment was for was to make
arguements and cause anger. He should know better than that.

One question: What kind of tractor did you drive and how long did
you do it for? I work for a Ford Heavy Truck dealership, so your
past sparked interest. Thank you in advance.

Josh

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 08:58:58 -0500
From: Thom Cheney
Subject: Re: Octane ratings

MR JOSH J TENNEY wrote:
>
> Almost all types of cars run just perfectly on 87 octane gas. Some
> of the high performance factory cars must run on 92, but your truck
> should be fine on 87. I am not exactly sure if the higher octane gas
> will reduce engine life. If you add a superchip module or powerchip
> to add horsepower, those usually require 92 octane gas. Maybe other
> people can explain more about it.
>
My old Toyota pick up had a bit more throttle response and a few more
mpg when I ran 89 octane instead of the 87. Not much difference when
I upped that to 92. My wife's Accord shows no difference with the
same comparison, although the CRX-si I owned way back in 1985 showed
the same improvements my truck did.

I ran both the CRX and Toyota for over 100,000 miles never burning or
leaking a noticeable amount of oil. I gassed up with 87 mostly,
upping to 89 octane every once in awhile.

I will most likely do the same with the Ranger.

TC

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 08:58:44 -0700
From: Brian Pynn
Subject: Speaking of ratios...

I'm just curious as to the number of Canadians vs. U.S. members in our
group. Nobody ever identifies where they're from when they post a
message--not that it's that important I suppose, a Ford's a Ford
wherever you live--but it would be interesting to know where people are
coming from.

The Americans are trying to pass some crappy immigration law that would
require us Canucks to have fingerprint I.D. and a special Visa just to
cross the border. This would involve hour long lineups at the borders
and would really suck...as I frequently drive from Vancouver to Seattle
to catch a hockey game or just enjoy a weekend of friendly Yankee
hospitality.

Sorry, I know this isn't a politcal newsgroup...but this issue has me
steamed. All you Americans, and fellow Ford lovers, please let your
local politician know your northern border is totally unlike your
southern one...and shouldn't be subject to the same kind of scrutiny.

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:02:58 -0700
From: Bill Funk
Subject: Re: F350 Front Diff Limited Slip

> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 97 12:18:49 -0500
> From: Jay Chlebowski
> Subject: F350 Front Diff Limited Slip
>



> Someone made a reference to an item that I've been curious about for
> some
> time -- namely that when you order the limited slip option on the
> F350,
> you get both a front & rear limited slip.
>
> I've got a 97 F350 4x4 Crew Cab PowerStroke (5-speed w/manual hubs &
> 3.55
> gears), and I'd love to be able to verify whether or not my stout Dana
> 60
> has a limited slip in it. Anyone know how to check/verify it?

Hi, Jay...The shop manuals will have the info you want, in the section
that interprets the VIN.
While the shop manual set can look expensive, they are probably less
than 1% of what you paid for that truck, and are a great investment.
Maybe someone on the list has the manuals, and can tell you what the VIN
numbers for the axles are for that truck...
Bill Funk

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:14:00 -0700
From: Bill Funk
Subject: Re: trailer wiring problem

>
>
> From: ROBERT.BUBALA rrd.com
> Subject: trailer wiring problem
>
> Hello
>
> I have a 97 F250HD truck, and for some reason, any trailer that I
> hook
> ino the trucks factory trailer wiring will not allow for the
> parking
> lights on the trailer to work, and I was wondering if someone out
>
> there had some ideas on what I could check.
>

OK, Bob, here's the skinny on checking this.You'll need an volt-ohmeter
and a 12-volt battery.
First, on the connector on the trailer, find the ground segment; this
can vary, but is usually the largest segment in the connector. Once
you've found the ground, connect the negative terminal of the battery to
that segment.
Then, using a probe connected to the positive terminal of the battery,
touch each other segment, until you find the one that lights the parking
lights. Find the corresponding segment on the connector on the truck,
and check it for presence of 12v with the truck's parking lights on; you
will probably find that there's none. Fix the wiring to that segment,
and you should have lights.
Sounds easy, and the application isn't that hard. To actually find the
ground, use the ohmeter; one probe connected to some bare metal on the
trailer frame somewhere (the hitch usually has some bare metal). Then,
check the connector segments for the lowest resistance (should be very
close to 0 ohms).
From there, it's just a matter of testing to see which one lights the
lights, finding the corresponding segment on the truck's connector,
checking for voltage (there should be none; if there *IS* voltage, all
the trailers you tried have bad wiring, not a common thing), and fixing
the lack of voltage.
Good luck!
Bill

------------------------------

Date: Thu, 18 Sep 1997 09:29:53 -0700
From: Bill Funk
Subject: Re: fordtrucks80up-digest V1 #118

> Date: Wed, 17 Sep 1997 20:15:01 -0500
> From: Ezekial
> Subject: 302 again
>
> What I want as far as more power is more speed and take off. So I can
>
> blow away some people around here. So far I really has raced someone
> but I beet a 1977 350 Monte Carlo. Besides blowing people away I like
>
> to have power on demand for short distance passing and also its just
> the
> way I like to drive. Fast, not dangerous. Also I am one of those more
> power the better guys, it can go to far though.
> My 289 Mustang meets this almost perfectly. Still needs a couple
> upgrades down the road.

No problem...
Speed costs money; how fa do you want to go??
Have you looked at an extremely reliable way to get that performance
edge... rear end torque multiplication?
Using smaller tires or installing a numerically higher rear end will
lower times to speed and distance, but will cut top speed. There will be
no changes to the engine, and thus no reliablity problems.
Next step is to let the engine breath; intake, exhaust and cam changes
are called for here. Exhaust is easy, aqnd not that expensive: headers....

---

To access the rest of this feature you must be a logged in Registered User Of Ford Truck Enthusiasts

Registration is free, easy and gives you access to more features.
If you are not registered, click here to register.
If you are already registered, you can login here.

If you are already logged in and are seeing this message, your web browser is blocking session cookies. Change your browser cookie settings to allow session cookies.